Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Web.dev by Google

web.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 264 posts

Re: Web.dev by Google

#221

Post by jopsen »

philtar wrote: post #87
jopsen wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://developers.google.com/fonts/faq#what_does_using_the_... I'm no lawyer, but I read that as it is not used for tracking users. (full disclosure: I work at Google, on something unrelated)

Do you have a guess why those assets are not cached more aggressively?

As I read the FAQ, the actual font files are aggressively cached. It's only the CSS files that links to the font files that aren't cached forever.

Probably to allow for updates and estimate popularity, with low overhead assuming CSS files are small.

Re: Web.dev by Google

#222

Post by RandomGuyDTB »

bitofhope wrote: post #178

This is useless to me because I have a website, not a web application. I got a 46/100 on PWA which is astonishing because the site being tested is not a progressive web application at all. Imagine vim getting a 40/100 score in the category of web browsers. Weirdly good score. The accessibility audit is garbage as well. Apparently I should add an image to the site just so I can put an alt attribute in it. I should inc…

My website scored a 46 as well. It's just a couple HTML pages with a single stylesheet but Google really wants me to configure it so you can read my internet webpage outside of the internet.

I think I'm gonna add an explanation for what CTRL+S does instead.

Re: Web.dev by Google

#223

Post by Zelphyr »

zwaps wrote: post #194

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE WEBDEVS, STOP LOADING YOUR WEBSITE WITH CRAP TO MAKE THEM BETTER I fed a large news site that is not terrible to use into this, and it gave it 14/100 rating. This news site is perfectly fine, has a good design, good typography and loads without any scripts if you need it to. It loads quite fast. Among other things, Google recommends - Lazy loading: NOOOO, just load my document. I hate this bullcr…

I agree with you about lazy loading. It's just dumb. How is it better to give me a scaffold of a page before the content? The page may look nice but is unusable until the content has loaded. Why not just give me everything when it's ready?

I've gotten into trouble for saying this before but things like recommending lazy loading is an example of Google imposing their wishes on the web and making it worse in the process.

Re: Web.dev by Google

#224

Post by Calib3r »

bitofhope wrote: post #214
arendtio wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might want to brush up your knowledge on what a PWA actually is [1]. For example, that list contains 'Site works cross-browser'. I hope your website works cross-browser too ;-) The only thing that sets apart a normal modern website (https, responsive, cross-browser, Each page has a URL) and a PWA is the ServiceWorker (and a few meta-tags). All the other aspects are more or less soft or minor aspects like "Page tr…

Hell yea my site works cross-browser. I've tested it with Firefox, Chromium, Midori, w3m, lynx, surf, and edbrowse and they all look fine. I freely admit I have no idea what a PWA actually is, but that page is not helping me understand. All I find are vague descriptions about how they're reliable, fast and engaging, but nothing even approaching a definition. For all I know, a 16-ounce claw hammer is a PWA. It's certa…

Explorer & Edge make up more than 30% of internet traffic, yet you ignore testing them?

Re: Web.dev by Google

#225

Post by Calib3r »

Zelphyr wrote: post #223
zwaps wrote: post #194

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE WEBDEVS, STOP LOADING YOUR WEBSITE WITH CRAP TO MAKE THEM BETTER I fed a large news site that is not terrible to use into this, and it gave it 14/100 rating. This news site is perfectly fine, has a good design, good typography and loads without any scripts if you need it to. It loads quite fast. Among other things, Google recommends - Lazy loading: NOOOO, just load my document. I hate this bullcr…

I agree with you about lazy loading. It's just dumb. How is it better to give me a scaffold of a page before the content? The page may look nice but is unusable until the content has loaded. Why not just give me everything when it's ready? I've gotten into trouble for saying this before but things like recommending lazy loading is an example of Google imposing their wishes on the web and making it worse in the proces…

I personally like lazy loading as far as UI experiences go. Shoot me.

Re: Web.dev by Google

#226

Post by progressiveweb »

My question is, why do we need a React/Redux for PWAs all the time? It is slow on cellular data, freezes phones without the latest Chrome, all in all feels laggy compared to a native app.

The thing is you can easily add "Progressiveness" to your website with Service workers and using open source libraries to add instant on-page navigation without repaint.

The only place I find an SPA is appropriate is anywhere else but e-commerce websites, which is one of the main target of Google's PWA initiative, to build a collective resistance to Amazon, which has one of the highest converting pages.

Your conversion rates will naturally go up when people are able to checkout quickly with minimal cognitive load, this does not mean that a React app is appropriate or feasible, especially when e-commerce businesses that rely on older phones, when smartphones are approaching 1000 USD

Re: Web.dev by Google

#227

Post by Touche »

kodablah wrote: post #217
Touche wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you disagree with the advice on web.dev then that's fine. Call that out. Saying that the advice is wrong because another team in another building, maybe in another city or another country, built an app you don't like, is just wrong. This sort of ad hominem is beneath HN.

Yet it seems excusing corporate hypocrisy and inconsistency based on size and employee location to be par for the course.

Sorry, I'm not letting you get away with an illogical argument here. There's nothing hypocritical about the authors of web.dev making an auditing tool because some other people who work for the same company work on site that (may) do badly.

In fact, it wouldn't be hypocritical even if the authors of web.dev themselves worked on a site that did badly.

It is, after all, a tool. It's not a declaration of superior intellect. It's not an article of condescension. It's a tool.

Re: Web.dev by Google

#228

Post by theandrewbailey »

bitofhope wrote: post #178

This is useless to me because I have a website, not a web application. I got a 46/100 on PWA which is astonishing because the site being tested is not a progressive web application at all. Imagine vim getting a 40/100 score in the category of web browsers. Weirdly good score. The accessibility audit is garbage as well. Apparently I should add an image to the site just so I can put an alt attribute in it. I should inc…

I hate how Google's tools keep pushing deferred CSS. It kind of breaks how CSS is supposed to work. They want you to manually pick out the CSS that is relevant to the top of the page, and put it directly into your HTML. How on earth is that maintainable or scaleable? Or secure?[0] You easily run the risk of sending redundant bytes if the same styles are still in your external CSS. I tried that little script they suggested, and not only got FOUC'ed up the ass, the page took longer to load. (bbbbbut it's asynchronous, that's what makes it SO FAST!) Nope, that didn't last long. Not going to do it, Goog.

[0] I have a strict Content Security Policy that forbids inline JS and CSS, and am considering using a require-sri-for declaration. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP

Re: Web.dev by Google

#229

Post by kodablah »

Touche wrote: post #227
kodablah wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet it seems excusing corporate hypocrisy and inconsistency based on size and employee location to be par for the course.

Sorry, I'm not letting you get away with an illogical argument here. There's nothing hypocritical about the authors of web.dev making an auditing tool because some other people who work for the same company work on site that (may) do badly. In fact, it wouldn't be hypocritical even if the authors of web.dev themselves worked on a site that did badly. It is, after all, a tool. It's not a declaration of superior intell…

The hypocritical statement is on the part of the company, not the specific authors. The efforts represent the company, as do their efforts in standards organizations, browser implementations, and email user interfaces. It is completely logical to question their inconsistencies especially as one of the primary drivers of standards. If the company cannot present a consistent front, we can ask ourselves whether their attempts to help others do so are accurate much less well intentioned. This should be obviously clear and not about individuals or their feelings.

Re: Web.dev by Google

#230

Post by semi-extrinsic »

RandomGuyDTB wrote: post #222
bitofhope wrote: post #178

This is useless to me because I have a website, not a web application. I got a 46/100 on PWA which is astonishing because the site being tested is not a progressive web application at all. Imagine vim getting a 40/100 score in the category of web browsers. Weirdly good score. The accessibility audit is garbage as well. Apparently I should add an image to the site just so I can put an alt attribute in it. I should inc…

My website scored a 46 as well. It's just a couple HTML pages with a single stylesheet but Google really wants me to configure it so you can read my internet webpage outside of the internet. I think I'm gonna add an explanation for what CTRL+S does instead.

I tested one of my websites which is a simple Flask app, and where the front page is just text, images and links.

My score was 500: Lighthouse Internal Server Error.

Post reply on HN